From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7470 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2010 18:17:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 7459 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2010 18:17:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ew0-f228.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f228.google.com) (209.85.219.228) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:17:32 +0000 Received: by ewy28 with SMTP id 28so24529926ewy.17 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:17:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.107.65 with SMTP id a1mr2178205ebp.85.1263147449926; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:17:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm41801129eyd.29.2010.01.10.10.17.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:17:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B4A1DAA.1030006@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 18:17:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vladimir Prus CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Turnaround upgrade in mi2 References: <5e81cb501001100803m2102dadek49c4f740d0af4d77@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-01/txt/msg00097.txt.bz2 Vladimir Prus wrote: > Sean Chen wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I compared the two versions of MI (mi1 and mi2) but found no obvious >> syntax change except some new commands. I think, personally, if there >> is no turnaround upgrade in gdb 6.0, > > What is "turnaround upgrade"? I'm inferring it means any kind of back-compat break. > >> why did we need to accumulate the >> version number to mi2? You know, there are also many new commands in >> gdb 7.0, but we don’t accumulate the mi version number to mi3 in gdb >> 7.0. >> >> So I am prone to think I must have missed the turnaround upgrade in >> mi2. Could somebody help to clarify? Thanks. > > I am afraid I don't know what are the differences between mi1 and mi2 and I am > not sure it's worth investigating. I have a vague memory that the difference is how asynchronous output from the inferior is presented in the output stream, and that the difference was enough to make it impossible to unambiguously parse an mi stream without knowing which one you were dealing with in advance. Sorry, I have no reference, but I'm sure there was a sane reason, I think it was to do with the output format and its parseability, and so it wouldn't have been just because new commands were added. cheers, DaveK